Trump just won

[LordKiran]

Ah, you have emotionally decided that he wasn't emotionally involved enough in his repeated repudiations. I guess that's proof he is a secret extreme white nationalist white supremacist racist.

And you see wolves approaching, we must call the villagers.

The fuck are you on about?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not projecting, I'm saying that industrialists at the time had sufficient information and intelligence to understand that they were exploiting children, and workers in general.

Not everyone did, or wanted to, of course, some people are just plain arseholes who cannot see the world from the perspective of others. It goes beyond social conditioning and the beliefs of their times to the point of Sociopathy.

Or too far up their own arses to see that they are causing needless misery and suffering while it is within their ability to change their business practices. That of course would not be in their own interest.

That the misery exploitation was indeed understood by at least some of the people of that period is reflected in the efforts of those who actually fought and struggled for better pay and conditions...so the rationale that 'this was the attitude of the time' is nonsense.

I think there's two things going on. Firstly I think they thought it was the natural order of things, the strong exploit the weak. If God didn't want them to be exploited God would intervene.

Secondly the industrialists could think of the rural farm poor and their horrendous living conditions. At least their workers worked in heated houses, had access to modern wonders of the world, like a clock. They often brought in doctors for regular check-ups, something farmers didn't have. Their workers lived in modern houses with all the latest technological thingamagigs. And so on. I think that the industrialists could imagine that they were very benevolent.

Don't forget that on farms children always worked. The society at that time just saw it as normal.

There's also the issue of social Darwinism. Early socialism (especially in Britain) came to be closely associated with the Eugenics movement. They saw the rich as genetically superior. They had risen to their position because of their awesomeness. That's the kind of socialism that the Fabian society was into. In this world view the rich shouldn't exploit their workers because that would be like picking on the handicapped kid at school. The genetically superior have a duty to protect those who weren't lucky enough to be born superior. So even socialist industiralists of that time, who really did care about their workers, in no way were into equality. They could work their workers damn hard too.

Good people can do evil things. It's just a matter of perspective.

 

[DBT]

I'm not projecting, I'm saying that industrialists at the time had sufficient information and intelligence to understand that they were exploiting children, and workers in general.

Not everyone did, or wanted to, of course, some people are just plain arseholes who cannot see the world from the perspective of others. It goes beyond social conditioning and the beliefs of their times to the point of Sociopathy.

Or too far up their own arses to see that they are causing needless misery and suffering while it is within their ability to change their business practices. That of course would not be in their own interest.

That the misery exploitation was indeed understood by at least some of the people of that period is reflected in the efforts of those who actually fought and struggled for better pay and conditions...so the rationale that 'this was the attitude of the time' is nonsense.

I think there's two things going on. Firstly I think they thought it was the natural order of things, the strong exploit the weak. If God didn't want them to be exploited God would intervene.

Secondly the industrialists could think of the rural farm poor and their horrendous living conditions. At least their workers worked in heated houses, had access to modern wonders of the world, like a clock. They often brought in doctors for regular check-ups, something farmers didn't have. Their workers lived in modern houses with all the latest technological thingamagigs. And so on. I think that the industrialists could imagine that they were very benevolent.

Don't forget that on farms children always worked. The society at that time just saw it as normal.

There's also the issue of social Darwinism. Early socialism (especially in Britain) came to be closely associated with the Eugenics movement. They saw the rich as genetically superior. They had risen to their position because of their awesomeness. That's the kind of socialism that the Fabian society was into. In this world view the rich shouldn't exploit their workers because that would be like picking on the handicapped kid at school. The genetically superior have a duty to protect those who weren't lucky enough to be born superior. So even socialist industiralists of that time, who really did care about their workers, in no way were into equality. They could work their workers damn hard too.

Good people can do evil things. It's just a matter of perspective.

That is a more reasonable assessment, but still does nothing to excuse the actions of industrialists. That the conditions which children and workers in general were expected to work under (not having any bargaining power), was recognized at the time, hence unions formed, better conditions fought for, days off, working hours decreased, pay improved, safety issues addressed and so on, which shows that the exploitative practices of these 'Captains of Industry' were recognised and understood.

So to say 'this was the attitude of the times' 'children worked' does not excuse the actions and attitudes of the 'Captains of Industry' their sheer bloody minded exploitation of workers.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That is a more reasonable assessment, but still does nothing to excuse the actions of industrialists. That the conditions which children and workers in general were expected to work under (not having any bargaining power), was recognized at the time, hence unions formed, better conditions fought for, days off, working hours decreased, pay improved, safety issues addressed and so on, which shows that the exploitative practices of these 'Captains of Industry' were recognised and understood.

So to say 'this was the attitude of the times' 'children worked' does not excuse the actions and attitudes of the 'Captains of Industry' their sheer bloody minded exploitation of workers.

People compare themselves to their peers. That was one of the genius insights of Karl Marx. It wasn't that rich people were evil. It was simply that anybody will justify whatever if they had an incentive to do so. Since the workers had zero leverage the capitalists just assumed all was fine. The workers only chance to break out of wage slavery was to organise and become powerful.

I don't think capitalists saw it as exploitation. I think they saw it as them being good people who at least had given these people jobs. Bear in mind that the poor people working in factories were the lucky ones. There were plenty of people who didn't even have that. There were unemployed drifters all over the place.

We have a bit of a hard time relating, because today the wheels of the economy is turning so fast and is so efficient that anybody, pretty much, can get a job. Society is also extremely richer. Today everybody can afford to pay taxes to pay for welfare. Back then... no. What killed the "workers movement" in the west wasn't that they were destroyed by the capitalists. But that they won. They got everything they wanted, and we're now living in a version of Marx's communist utopia (the dictatorship of the proletariat). That's just a fact.

We're now living in a world where we know it is possible, and that this world can work. They didn't know this world was at all possible back then. It's was all utopian dreaming.

 

[LordKiran]

I'm not projecting, I'm saying that industrialists at the time had sufficient information and intelligence to understand that they were exploiting children, and workers in general.

Not everyone did, or wanted to, of course, some people are just plain arseholes who cannot see the world from the perspective of others. It goes beyond social conditioning and the beliefs of their times to the point of Sociopathy.

Or too far up their own arses to see that they are causing needless misery and suffering while it is within their ability to change their business practices. That of course would not be in their own interest.

That the misery exploitation was indeed understood by at least some of the people of that period is reflected in the efforts of those who actually fought and struggled for better pay and conditions...so the rationale that 'this was the attitude of the time' is nonsense.

I think there's two things going on. Firstly I think they thought it was the natural order of things, the strong exploit the weak. If God didn't want them to be exploited God would intervene.

Secondly the industrialists could think of the rural farm poor and their horrendous living conditions. At least their workers worked in heated houses, had access to modern wonders of the world, like a clock. They often brought in doctors for regular check-ups, something farmers didn't have. Their workers lived in modern houses with all the latest technological thingamagigs. And so on. I think that the industrialists could imagine that they were very benevolent.

Don't forget that on farms children always worked. The society at that time just saw it as normal.

There's also the issue of social Darwinism. Early socialism (especially in Britain) came to be closely associated with the Eugenics movement. They saw the rich as genetically superior. They had risen to their position because of their awesomeness. That's the kind of socialism that the Fabian society was into. In this world view the rich shouldn't exploit their workers because that would be like picking on the handicapped kid at school. The genetically superior have a duty to protect those who weren't lucky enough to be born superior. So even socialist industiralists of that time, who really did care about their workers, in no way were into equality. They could work their workers damn hard too.

Good people can do evil things. It's just a matter of perspective.

The problem with this is that Eugenics didn't get it's start until the 20th century. Social Darwinism on the other hand is that aforementioned justification used by robber barons to assauge their own guilt. Again, this is the 19th/early 20th century we're talking about, these men were god-fearing and definitely had a personal understanding of morals and ethics even if they chose to ignore it.

 

[Elixir]

He repudiated the Duke non-endorsement repeatedly, and not just "after the election" but also before. That's why he asked if he had to repudiate it a twelfth time, because he had done so before and was being asked again.

This is why the author I quoted was saying "quit crying wolf". The cry of "wolf" is worn, tired, ineffective. That's why it really didn't work this time around.

Lol! He has embraced everything he has repudiated and repudiated everything he has embraced. Whether he is a racist is no longer relevant - he's a flaming orange hypocrite.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think there's two things going on. Firstly I think they thought it was the natural order of things, the strong exploit the weak. If God didn't want them to be exploited God would intervene.

Secondly the industrialists could think of the rural farm poor and their horrendous living conditions. At least their workers worked in heated houses, had access to modern wonders of the world, like a clock. They often brought in doctors for regular check-ups, something farmers didn't have. Their workers lived in modern houses with all the latest technological thingamagigs. And so on. I think that the industrialists could imagine that they were very benevolent.

Don't forget that on farms children always worked. The society at that time just saw it as normal.

There's also the issue of social Darwinism. Early socialism (especially in Britain) came to be closely associated with the Eugenics movement. They saw the rich as genetically superior. They had risen to their position because of their awesomeness. That's the kind of socialism that the Fabian society was into. In this world view the rich shouldn't exploit their workers because that would be like picking on the handicapped kid at school. The genetically superior have a duty to protect those who weren't lucky enough to be born superior. So even socialist industiralists of that time, who really did care about their workers, in no way were into equality. They could work their workers damn hard too.

Good people can do evil things. It's just a matter of perspective.

The problem with this is that Eugenics didn't get it's start until the 20th century. Social Darwinism on the other hand is that aforementioned justification used by robber barons to assauge their own guilt. Again, this is the 19th/early 20th century we're talking about, these men were god-fearing and definitely had a personal understanding of morals and ethics even if they chose to ignore it.

That was one of the factors. The other factors still applied. I wrote them, I think, chronologically.

 

[LordKiran]

The problem with this is that Eugenics didn't get it's start until the 20th century. Social Darwinism on the other hand is that aforementioned justification used by robber barons to assauge their own guilt. Again, this is the 19th/early 20th century we're talking about, these men were god-fearing and definitely had a personal understanding of morals and ethics even if they chose to ignore it.

That was one of the factors. The other factors still applied. I wrote them, I think, chronologically.

I'd argue that if the working definition of 'good' is 'someone who treats your fellow man humanely and in accordance with the holy bible' (Which was the moral standard of the time) then no, by the standards of the time, the captains of industry who exploited their workers and put their consumers in danger were not 'good'.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ah, you have emotionally decided that he wasn't emotionally involved enough in his repeated repudiations. I guess that's proof he is a secret extreme white nationalist white supremacist racist.

And you see wolves approaching, we must call the villagers.

The fuck are you on about?

The central point - you need to concentrate on actual issues instead of always crying "wolf" if you want to win.

I know, crying "wolf" is a lot of fun, but the villagers have stopped coming to save you.

He repudiated the Duke non-endorsement repeatedly, and not just "after the election" but also before. That's why he asked if he had to repudiate it a twelfth time, because he had done so before and was being asked again.

This is why the author I quoted was saying "quit crying wolf". The cry of "wolf" is worn, tired, ineffective. That's why it really didn't work this time around.

Lol! He has embraced everything he has repudiated and repudiated everything he has embraced. Whether he is a racist is no longer relevant - he's a flaming orange hypocrite.

Not all bad people are racists. Calling someone a racist just because they are bad in other ways dilutes "racist" until it means nothing.

Responding to him not being a racist with "oh but he is bad in other areas" is not in any way related to the point I'm making.

Of course by saying "if the Democrats want to win they have to stop reflexively calling everyone racist just for not being Democrats" you somehow have concluded I'm defending and supporting Trump. I have been saying that Trump's victory is the Democratic Party's fault because of the campaign they ran. That sounds exactly like something a Trump supporter would say.

 

[LordKiran]

The fuck are you on about?

The central point - you need to concentrate on actual issues instead of always crying "wolf" if you want to win.

I know, crying "wolf" is a lot of fun, but the villagers have stopped coming to save you.

He repudiated the Duke non-endorsement repeatedly, and not just "after the election" but also before. That's why he asked if he had to repudiate it a twelfth time, because he had done so before and was being asked again.

This is why the author I quoted was saying "quit crying wolf". The cry of "wolf" is worn, tired, ineffective. That's why it really didn't work this time around.

Lol! He has embraced everything he has repudiated and repudiated everything he has embraced. Whether he is a racist is no longer relevant - he's a flaming orange hypocrite.

Not all bad people are racists. Calling someone a racist just because they are bad in other ways dilutes "racist" until it means nothing.

Responding to him not being a racist with "oh but he is bad in other areas" is not in any way related to the point I'm making.

Of course by saying "if the Democrats want to win they have to stop reflexively calling everyone racist just for not being Democrats" you somehow have concluded I'm defending and supporting Trump. I have been saying that Trump's victory is the Democratic Party's fault because of the campaign they ran. That sounds exactly like something a Trump supporter would say.

Except I'm not crying wolf, I even went so far as to say that Trump himself probably isn't a racist. So again, the fuck are you on about?

 

[Elixir]

He repudiated the Duke non-endorsement repeatedly, and not just "after the election" but also before. That's why he asked if he had to repudiate it a twelfth time, because he had done so before and was being asked again.

This is why the author I quoted was saying "quit crying wolf". The cry of "wolf" is worn, tired, ineffective. That's why it really didn't work this time around.

Lol! He has embraced everything he has repudiated and repudiated everything he has embraced. Whether he is a racist is no longer relevant - he's a flaming orange hypocrite.

Not all bad people are racists.

Not even all racists are blatant hypocrites.

Calling someone a racist just because they are bad in other ways dilutes "racist" until it means nothing.

One more reason not to focus on Trump's racism. It might not be real - he's a pandering hypocrite.

Responding to him not being a racist with "oh but he is bad in other areas" is not in any way related to the point I'm making.

What "point"? That racism, real or imagined, is not Trump's worst attribute?

I have been saying that Trump's victory is the Democratic Party's fault because of the campaign they ran.

Is someone arguing against that? Wherever the blame can be placed, the fact remains that an ethically vacuous individual was elected.

That sounds exactly like something a Trump supporter would say.

I suppose you'd be the expert on what a Trump supporter would say. So what?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, there are people arguing against the premise "Trump's victory is the fault of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, and the lousy campaign they ran." I know this because every time I bring it up, people accuse me of being a Trump supporter and some actually do insist that Hillary was a great candidate who ran a great campaign. Then all the blame for her loss is assigned to racism because there's no other reason why such a great candidate with a great campaign would ever lose.

That is why the liberal blog author I quoted said "stop crying wolf" and I've been saying "please stop crying fucking wolf all the fucking time". You can join those who say Hillary ran such an awesome campaign, in which case the only explanation is racism. Or you can grow the fuck up and realize that Hillary was deeply flawed and that it is her fault we have Trump.

Defending the parroting of "Racism, Racism, Squawk, Polly want a cracker, Racism" doesn't help. It really doesn't.

When I say "stop crying wolf" and you reply "you're a Trump supporter", that helps even less.

Now we have DrZ saying that Trump didn't repudiate vehemently enough and that is the secret proof, and simultaneously saying he isn't saying anything about Trump being racist. And we have Elixir saying that my insistence that we should stop crying wolf makes me a Trump supporter.

I'm now confronted with the most absurd of all arguments. "He's a bad guy, so even if he isn't racist its okay to call him racist. If you disagree with me calling him racist then that means you are a Trumps supporter." No it isn't and no it doesn't. That argument is nothing more than a toddler-level temper tantrum. Grow the fuck up.

 

[Elixir]

You can join those who say Hillary ran such an awesome campaign

No thanks. She fucked up mightily, both by being honest about the wrong things and about not being honest about the things she should have been.

Or you can grow the fuck up and realize that Hillary was deeply flawed and that it is her fault we have Trump

.

I can fault her primarily (and I do), but 'credit' must be given to the DNC/Debbie, whose direction HRC must be held liable for heeding.

Defending the parroting of "Racism, Racism, Squawk, Polly want a cracker, Racism" doesn't help.

Imagining people parroting "Racism, Racism, Squawk, Polly want a cracker, Racism" when they're not doing that, is similarly unhelpful.

When I say "stop crying wolf" and you reply "you're a Trump supporter", that helps even less.

Tell me about it when I do that. Until then, I will persist in saying what I AM saying - the electorate has selected a total hypocrite who is devoid of actual moral values. And yes, if I had to select one guilty party it would be HRC.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Trump won because enough people in key states voted for him.
Clinton loss because not enough people in key states voted for her.

Those are the direct reasons this election's result.

If you voted for trump, own it and get ready for the consequences because you have to own them too.
If you voted for clinton, own it and admit you voted for a candidate that couldn't inspire enough people to do the same.

STOP THE MADNESS

 

[credoconsolans]

Trump won because enough people in key states voted for him.
Clinton loss because not enough people in key states voted for her.

Those are the direct reasons this election's result.

If you voted for trump, own it and get ready for the consequences because you have to own them too.
If you voted for clinton, own it and admit you voted for a candidate that couldn't inspire enough people to do the same.

STOP THE MADNESS

Except she did. She won the popular vote. The electoral college does not reflect the inspiration of getting people to the polls.

 

[LordKiran]

Trump won because enough people in key states voted for him.
Clinton loss because not enough people in key states voted for her.

Those are the direct reasons this election's result.

If you voted for trump, own it and get ready for the consequences because you have to own them too.
If you voted for clinton, own it and admit you voted for a candidate that couldn't inspire enough people to do the same.

STOP THE MADNESS

Except she did. She won the popular vote. The electoral college does not reflect the inspiration of getting people to the polls.

She won the popular vote by like 2 points.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That was one of the factors. The other factors still applied. I wrote them, I think, chronologically.

I'd argue that if the working definition of 'good' is 'someone who treats your fellow man humanely and in accordance with the holy bible' (Which was the moral standard of the time) then no, by the standards of the time, the captains of industry who exploited their workers and put their consumers in danger were not 'good'.

Well... I think "good" is a bullshit concept as so far as it describes personal traits. People may do good or evil things. But I don't think anybody is motivated by being good or evil. I think life was hard back then. Anything better than starving in the streets was considered "doing good". I recently read an interesting story about the London matchstick workers strike of 1888. The company was struggling with competition and reverted to using cheap white phosphorus instead of red phosphorus. This was dangerous to the health, but could be mitigated by taking some precautions. The problem was when the workers did away with the precautions to speed up the process and developed phossy jaw (a horrendous disease) and then hid it, so they wouldn't get fired, which only made everything worse until they dropped dead. They also used child labour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_matchgirls_strike_of_1888

Where's the evil in this? The factory owner couldn't compete with the much cheaper Swedish matches. Which were cheaper because Sweden in 1988 was among the poorest countries on the planet then. We were poor compared to countries like India.

It's just the market. These capitalists just did what they had to do to survive. Which they did. Now the brand is owned by Swedish Match. Oh, the irony.

The only solution was to ban white phosphorous. Which they did in 1908. Only then could the company stop using it without risking bankruptcy. I see it as neither good nor evil. It just is.

 

[Elixir]

Trump won because enough people in key states voted for him.
Clinton loss because not enough people in key states voted for her.

Those are the direct reasons this election's result.

If you voted for trump, own it and get ready for the consequences because you have to own them too.
If you voted for clinton, own it and admit you voted for a candidate that couldn't inspire enough people to do the same.

STOP THE MADNESS

Jason is baiting us all to identify a culprit to blame. Seems to want us to condemn HRC for running a failing campaign. While she would be the #1 suspect, I also implicate the DNC. But we also have to give Trump credit for playing the media like a cheap fiddle, and proving out his assertion that there's no such thing as bad publicity. He continually chummed the media with morsels of meat dripping with the blood of racism, bigotry and misogynism, and all the media repeatedly and consistently rose to the bait. It's a model that is bound to be repeated, sadly. Media outlets are businesses after all, and have a duty to their shareholders is to keep pounding on that which they think sells the most pharmaceuticals, automobiles and fast food.

 

[credoconsolans]

Except she did. She won the popular vote. The electoral college does not reflect the inspiration of getting people to the polls.

She won the popular vote by like 2 points.

Winning is winning, or so the Trump supporters tell me.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Trump won because enough people in key states voted for him.
Clinton loss because not enough people in key states voted for her.

Those are the direct reasons this election's result.

If you voted for trump, own it and get ready for the consequences because you have to own them too.
If you voted for clinton, own it and admit you voted for a candidate that couldn't inspire enough people to do the same.

STOP THE MADNESS

Except she did. She won the popular vote. The electoral college does not reflect the inspiration of getting people to the polls.

But not in key states. Please read the top two sentences.

AND

The time to complain about the Electoral College is NOT after it doesn't work for you. Start now campaigning and lobbying to get rid of it for the 2020 election.
See how much support you really get from either party's establishment.